mistertim

Yeah I kind of have a hard time seeing them letting Judge go after one year of a 5 year contract. That being said, it's pretty much all up to whoever the new GM is. Though there's always the possibility that Mara and co. could bring in a GM who'd promise to work with Judge. I have no idea though what Mara thinks of Judge or whether that hire was all Gettleman. If it was all Gettleman I could see the new GM potentially canning Judge. If not, then Judge will probably get another year at least. Only issue there is they'd probably have to pay Judge a bunch of money if they move on.

Sure, every QB needs pieces around him to be successful. But some QBs much more than others. Jimmy G is a guy who might be able to get you there if you have a superlative cast around him and a dominant defense so he doesn't have to do too much. That's how the Niners got to the SB with him years ago. But I'm not really all that interested in a guy like that. For almost all teams he's basically your ticket to being a perennial of the pack non-contender.

We have no idea what NYG would want because we have no idea who's going to be in charge of their team. Gettleman retired and Joe Judge's future will likely be decided by whoatever new GM they bring in. NYG can crow all they want about being high and mighty, but if the opportunity came to be able to get a young proven elite NFL QB, I'm guessing Mara and company would quickly forget their rhetoric and go after him.

Yeah, that's true that Watson apparently nixed the Philly idea. But my main point in my response was that if any of those teams truly were interested (and they knew there was a chance Watson would waive his no-trade clause for them) there's no doubt that they could come up with some serious trade ammo. I don't see why NYG wouldn't want him. Daniel Jones is IMO destined to be a completely mediocre QB for his entire career. Gettleman probably wouldn't approve of it, but he's out now. Sure, Joe Judge has that hardass no-nonsense reputation but if he thought he could get a guy like Watson (who could possibly save his career) I doubt he'd dismiss it out of hand.

IMO you're seeing this through burgundy colored glasses. All of those teams have draft picks and any or all of them could offer 3 1st round picks plus multiple other picks plus players if they wanted to. There's no reason to believe that Philly and NYG wouldn't be interested. And they have tons and tons of draft capital.

I thought it was Kurt Huntley?

I'm not sure that's completely accurate though. There reports that at some point he gave a hard no on Philly, but didn't say no to anyone else necessarily. I don't think that's quite the same as giving the ok to Washington. Yeah his character and legal red flags are certainly and issue, and I'm guessing it would come into play if or when Ron and the FO decide whether or not they want to try and enter that sweepstakes. You'd kind of hope those things would heavily impact the market...but I have a feeling it's probably not the case. If his legal woes are still a huge thing and it could realistically lead to the NFL suspending him possibly for even a full season, then that would definitely be something that's a red flag. But IMO the character concerns themselves would likely go out the window for most clubs. "Winning cures everything" and having a true elite top 5 NFL QB is a pathway to winning. As far as Stafford and Wents, I don't really see much similarity. Stafford has never been in that truly elite echelon. He's very good and he's always been a solid top 10-15 guy, but I don't think he's ever been way up there in that Mahomes, Rodgers, etc territory; Watson is. Stafford will also be 34 this year. That's not old in QB terms, but it's not young. Watson is 26, which is still very young for a QB and just starting to enter his prime. Wentz is ever further away than Stafford. He had 2/3 of a season where he looked like a potential upper echelon elite QB, but after he got injured everything went downhill and he was mostly a middle of the pack QB and then just became awful in 2020. That's why the Colts got him for so little. But the actual cost still depends on how many more teams Watson opens the doors for. If he stays stubborn then the Texans may get fleeced. if he opens it up for a handful of extra teams, I have a feeling the bidding will get crazy pretty fast.

Fair point, but I think it also depends on whether Watson will expand the list of teams he'd be willing to drop his no-trade clause for. If he's willing to do that, then the floodgates open. If he's not, then you're right and they may not be able to get nearly what they could otherwise.

This is a 26 year old top 5 NFL QB. Someone like that hitting the trade market is pretty much unprecedented. Assuming a few other teams are in the pool, the offers could get pretty crazy pretty fast. I'm guessing someone would offer 3 1sts plus multiple starters or 3 1sts plus multiple 2nds, etc. Don't underestimate how much people will pay for a QB in today's NFL. Hell, the Niners gave up 3 1sts just to move up and draft a super raw rookie.

Yeah no way would Sweat, Payne and a 1st work. I'm guessing the minimum buy-in bet would be 2 1sts + multiple starters. So maybe Sweat, Payne, and 2 1sts. But that would probably only be our initial offer. They'd probably want more.

Again with this Huntley stuff. What in the world makes you think Huntley could take the current team to the playoffs? The guy has started 4 games. Also, we aren't running an offense completely geared towards running QBs like the Ravens are, and Huntley is exactly that...a running QB. Though I see you've moved from a 2nd to a 4th for him, so that's something. I'm completely uninterested in him and IMO he makes no sense here as our offense is currently operated. Where are you getting 190lbs from? He's listed as 6'2 205. I'm guessing he'll come in closer to 6'1 at the combine, but 205 isn't swizzle stick territory and there's no reason to believe he couldn't add another 10-15lbs if need be.

Did Ron actually say anything about trades in the interview or was he just talking in general? Maybe he was talking about FAs.

So the blame merry-go-round is back to Turner. I was wondering who it would be today.

So your point is that at some point someone somewhere personally hated Heinicke for some reason unrelated to being skeptical that he's a long term NFL starter, therefore "people" in general despised him? That's a tad reductionist, isn't it? So basically...he's like every single NFL QB ever. Or every single NFL player ever.

Dude you're grasping at straws and just making **** up now. Nobody hated him because of his political views (when the hell did he talk about his political views?) or because of his name or where he went to school or his tattoos or his hair, or any. other. reason. Some people questioned whether he had the requisite tools to be a full time starting NFL QB and were dubious about it. But everyone gave him a chance and not a single person here would have been pissed off if he'd blown up and become an elite QB. Just stop with this fantasy that people who had some critical views of Heinicke's play "despised" him. I was critical of his play at times but I never despised him (or even disliked him at all). I wasn't convinced that he had what it took and was skeptical, but I was more than willing to see what he could do and I would have been ecstatic if he'd ended up being the answer. He also seems like a very good dude and his story is great. But that doesn't mean he's fit to be a full time NFL starter.

This is the equivalent of "I totally have a girlfriend. She lives in a different state so you wouldn't know her." Unless you can provide some supporting evidence I'm going to have to ask you to withdraw your statement, post-haste. Nobody here "openly despised" Heinicke or wanted him to fail. That's basically a fantasy that hardcore Heinicke supporters concocted so they could ignore valid criticisms of his play.

I've seen this multiple times from a few different posters, but I have yet to see any supporting evidence. Who exactly can you point to that "openly despised" Heinicke?

Yeah I do get that Ron really seems to be ok with it. But I'm wondering what would happen if there was a disagreement from Turner. Not necessarily "No, I won't coach this guy" or something, but more "This is not the guy I'd prefer because I don't think he's the right fit for what I'm trying to do offensively. I want a guy who is a more polished passer and not primarily a runner." Would Ron overrule him? I agree that Turner's comments don't necessarily rule Willis out, but he definitely emphasized passing first, with the athleticism to extend plays and move being really great as well. To me that would put Willis a bit further down the list, unless Turner and Ron truly believe that they can turn Willis from a running QB into a passing QB who can move.

If that's the case then we're pretty screwed. I have to assume the plan is to draft a QB (outside of being able to trade for Wilson), and if so I'd much rather us bring in a FA like Mariota or Trubisky. Neither are very good but they're mediocre, don't cost draft picks, and could hold the fort down for a season if need be while the rookie learns. Jimmy G might be a little better than them but IMO only very slightly and not worth the draft capital vs just a middle tier contract.

He can "get it done" if he doesn't have to do much of it himself. If he's surrounded by a great cast and with the support of a top defense, then he's good. He can make some plays when needed and won't make too many costly mistakes. But he's not a true franchise QB. I only see him as a very modest upgrade to Heinicke, mostly because he has an NFL arm. But that's about it.

I still don't completely get where this idea of Jimmy G being a good QB comes from. He's completely and utterly mediocre. Is he an upgrade to Heinicke? Sure, because he has an NFL arm. But IMO that's about it. He's a pure game manager who needs a superior team around him to go anywhere. He's not a bad QB, but neither are other mediocre QBs who I don't really dig. I'm guessing SF would ask for a 2nd for him and IMO he's not worth it. If we're going to draft a rookie I'd rather save the draft capital and just bring in one of the other mediocre QBs available in FA.

Oh trust me, I was never ever on the Darnold bandwagon, so we're on the same page. I just think it's pretty funny that you still take random shots at him whenever possible.

I calculate a 94.7% chance that you have a dartboard with Darnold's face on it in your office.

Huntley isn't a mobile QB, he's a running QB. Turner in a recent interview was pretty upfront when asked about what he looks for in QBs. He said athleticism and the ability to extend plays was a great thing to have in today's NFL but first and foremost a QB has to beat you with his arm. Anything above a 6th for Huntley would be ludicrous. He's a UDFA who's started 4 games and almost exclusively works in a running QB oriented offense. Which we don't have (and IMO shouldn't have).

Thank you. I thought I was taking crazy pills or something. So we're going to trade a 3rd round pick for a UDFA QB who's started 3 games, has 3 TDs and 4 INTs and who basically only functions in an offense designed for a running QB? That makes zero sense to me.